School places - Leics CC meltdown

[Grebfromgrebland]

You're wrong to say that cuts can only go so far.  There's so much further they can go.

 

Just look at other privatised industries.

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

On 26/08/2023 at 10:11, Heathrow fox said:

It started in the eighties.It was one of Thatcher’s key policies.Freedom to choose.

It started before that.  My brother went to secondary school in 1971 and he (or our parents) were given a choice of three to choose from, in order of preference.  (He didn't get any of them and went to direct grant grammar school instead, but that's by the by.)

 

The problem was that three of the seven schools were so appalling that no-one put them down as choices, so the poor kids that lived closest got lumbered.  The idea that a bad school must be left as it is, and cannot be closed down whether it improves or not, and children have to go there to receive a rotten education because that's government policy, has been around for decades.  Academy schools are an attempt to cure it.

[dsr-burnley]

On 27/08/2023 at 04:19, fox_favourite said:

cuts can only keep going for so long. It's reached a point that staff levels have been cut so far back that it overwhelms the people who are left as they are expected to do more work than before with less people and on a cheaper wage (you get what you pay for). Unfortunately, if budgets are cut outside the LAs control and they still need to provide a service, this is the result. Mistakes are made, build up of work is inevitable and the quality is affected. 

 

But on the topic of admissions, yes my kids went through the process of this. The school was over subscribed in the local area, but we kept in contact with the school (who were brilliant) and helped us get a place, but unfortunately you have to go through admissions to get the place confirmed. If you get turned down by them, appeal and tell the school you are and then the school can get involved and over rule it if they can prove there is a space or can make arrangements to accommodate your child/children. Not in all cases though. I think it's easier to do so if the school is part of a MAT (Multi Academy Trust) or is an Academy of some sort and not a LA school. I hope this helps. 

I'm not sure about staff cuts.  Infant and Junior schools, at least, seem to have classroom assistants in every class, which they certainly didn't when I was a lad.

[fox_favourite]

30 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I'm not sure about staff cuts.  Infant and Junior schools, at least, seem to have classroom assistants in every class, which they certainly didn't when I was a lad.

No not in schools, at the local authority. Admissions is handled centrally. However, if schools have to fund the teacher pay rise they selves, then TA's will be cut and that will affect the kids. 

Edited 28 August 2023 by fox_favourite

[Daggers]

19 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

No not in schools, at the local authority. Admissions is handled centrally. However, if schools have to fund the teacher pay rise they selves, then TA's will be cut and that will affect the kids. 

 

The "We never had support assistants to help us fend off dinosaur attacks" crowd seem to think improvements in education aren't linked to funding and staffing, I doubt you'll get far arguing the case with them.

 

And the spate of supply I did in Nptonshire a few years ago showed Primaries absolutely do not have a TA per class anymore...and I very much doubt that has changed for the better.

[Lionator]

My mum is a TA and they have a league table system based on class performance. The TA’s are constantly threatened with redundancy if they are at the bottom of the league table which is decided by kids performances/behaviour in class. I’m sure it’s illegal but they’re also discouraged against unionising. The school works on a profit based system where kids are referred to as ‘resources’ and they will cut places so that the executive heads can get a well deserved pay rise. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Lionator said:

My mum is a TA and they have a league table system based on class performance. The TA’s are constantly threatened with redundancy if they are at the bottom of the league table which is decided by kids performances/behaviour in class. I’m sure it’s illegal but they’re also discouraged against unionising. The school works on a profit based system where kids are referred to as ‘resources’ and they will cut places so that the executive heads can get a well deserved pay rise. 

... evidently the powers that be have looked across the Atlantic and seen that they want some of that, then. The teachers, TAs, other staff and the kids themselves (unless they can be used to show off) be damned.

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

The "We never had support assistants to help us fend off dinosaur attacks" crowd seem to think improvements in education aren't linked to funding and staffing, I doubt you'll get far arguing the case with them.

 

And the spate of supply I did in Nptonshire a few years ago showed Primaries absolutely do not have a TA per class anymore...and I very much doubt that has changed for the better.

I'm not going to argue against the idea that Local Authorities are handling the cash badly.  But schools performance clearly doesn't depend on government spending, because spending per pupil has risen during the past 13 years, and yet I'm told that schools aren't improving.

 

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics

[dsr-burnley]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... evidently the powers that be have looked across the Atlantic and seen that they want some of that, then. The teachers, TAs, other staff and the kids themselves (unless they can be used to show off) be damned.

If I was a parent, I suspect I might quite like the idea that the better TAs get paid more and the worse TAs get put out of a job.  They could perhaps extend it to teachers.

 

This of course involves getting a competent head teacher who doesn't just read league tables, but that's true of all jobs as well.

[ozleicester]

If you are a teacher in the UK (or usa)... come to Oz... its a long way from perfect here, but appears wayyyy better than there and big offers on the table currently

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

If I was a parent, I suspect I might quite like the idea that the better TAs get paid more and the worse TAs get put out of a job.  They could perhaps extend it to teachers.

 

This of course involves getting a competent head teacher who doesn't just read league tables, but that's true of all jobs as well.

... because of course performances of such people can and should be quantified (how is that possible outside of league tables, exactly?) and such criteria that jobs will be pinned on will be anything other than subjective anyway

 

This line of argument simply encourages a hugely divided education system where barring some remarkable exceptions that its advocates hold up as somehow indicative, the poor students and those less able to meet the demands of the current education system (sometimes through no fault of their own) will simply be left to rot. Just like across vast swathes of the US.

 

And there was me thinking the job of a society was to help as many of its citizens as possible.

 

NB. Of course some parents would want such a system, they're motivated by self interest and interest in their child above all others. That doesn't mean such behaviour is in many ways at all positive or good for them or anyone else long term and should be encouraged.

[fox_favourite]

11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I'm not going to argue against the idea that Local Authorities are handling the cash badly.  But schools performance clearly doesn't depend on government spending, because spending per pupil has risen during the past 13 years, and yet I'm told that schools aren't improving.

 

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics

Costs, like everything else has also risen. So it's not just education. There's heating, building repairs, improvements, resources, teaching salaries, and much, much more. The actual cash they has increased but costs have increased at a much faster rate. The cost of living doesn't just affect households. Education is hit very hard. 

[Heathrow fox]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It started before that.  My brother went to secondary school in 1971 and he (or our parents) were given a choice of three to choose from, in order of preference.  (He didn't get any of them and went to direct grant grammar school instead, but that's by the by.)

 

The problem was that three of the seven schools were so appalling that no-one put them down as choices, so the poor kids that lived closest got lumbered.  The idea that a bad school must be left as it is, and cannot be closed down whether it improves or not, and children have to go there to receive a rotten education because that's government policy, has been around for decades.  Academy schools are an attempt to cure it. 

I don’t doubt you

Maggie excelerated things as freedom to choose was one of the corner stones of Thatcherism.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I don’t doubt you

Maggie excelerated things as freedom to choose was one of the corner stones of Thatcherism.

Quite right.

 

The freedom to choose self-interest at the direct and indirect expense of other people being chief among such choices.

[Milo]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Quite right.

 

The freedom to choose self-interest at the direct and indirect expense of other people being chief among such choices.

Hmm.

 

The Grammar school system is now out of reach for anyone who doesn’t hot-house their kids from the age of 5. It’s been hijacked. 
 

If you are then left with a choice of a couple of schools on the area - one good, one bad - where are you going to want to send your child? 

Obviously, a utopian paradise where all schools are equally fabulous is the answer. But that has never been the case, nor will it ever be.

 

I’m not sure directing your disappointment in the human race at parents who want the best for their kids is the best route to go down! 

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Costs, like everything else has also risen. So it's not just education. There's heating, building repairs, improvements, resources, teaching salaries, and much, much more. The actual cash they has increased but costs have increased at a much faster rate. The cost of living doesn't just affect households. Education is hit very hard. 

The figures I linked show that expenses per child have risen by more than inflation.  

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

... because of course performances of such people can and should be quantified (how is that possible outside of league tables, exactly?) and such criteria that jobs will be pinned on will be anything other than subjective anyway

 

This line of argument simply encourages a hugely divided education system where barring some remarkable exceptions that its advocates hold up as somehow indicative, the poor students and those less able to meet the demands of the current education system (sometimes through no fault of their own) will simply be left to rot. Just like across vast swathes of the US.

 

And there was me thinking the job of a society was to help as many of its citizens as possible.

 

NB. Of course some parents would want such a system, they're motivated by self interest and interest in their child above all others. That doesn't mean such behaviour is in many ways at all positive or good for them or anyone else long term and should be encouraged.

You must have had some idea when you were at school about who were the good teachers and who were the bad teachers.  You didn't do that by way of league tables.  The competent head I referred to, the one who doesn't just rely on league tables, should know who is good and who is bad; who deserves a [pay rise and who doesn't; who will best serve the interests of children by getting a different job, and who is a treasure to be encouraged at all costs.

[dsr-burnley]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Quite right.

 

The freedom to choose self-interest at the direct and indirect expense of other people being chief among such choices.

The problem is where there isn't that freedom.  Where I live there were 7 high schools, 6 in the elongated urban area of Brierfield-Nelson-Colne, and 1 in Barnoldswick, separated by 3 or 4 miles of countryside.  There was a strict ration of number of children allocated to each school, no flexibility.

 

The school in Barnoldswick was bad.  Approximately 70% of Barnoldswick parents selected three schools in Nelson and Colne rather than selecting their home town school, knowing that free transport wouldn't be available.  But no-one from Nelson and Colne wanted to go to Barnoldswick, so all those parent (and children) who selected "anywhere but Barnoldswick" got landed with Barnoldswick.  And because the headteacher was both incompetent and unsackable, this went on for year after year.  

 

If parental choice worked properly, the school would have closed and then presumably reopened with new management and new teachers; or alternative, possibly smaller, schools would have opened; or the better schools some distance away would have expanded a bit.  Surely better than subjecting a generation of children to failed education.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Milo said:

Hmm.

 

The Grammar school system is now out of reach for anyone who doesn’t hot-house their kids from the age of 5. It’s been hijacked. 
 

If you are then left with a choice of a couple of schools on the area - one good, one bad - where are you going to want to send your child? 

Obviously, a utopian paradise where all schools are equally fabulous is the answer. But that has never been the case, nor will it ever be.

 

I’m not sure directing your disappointment in the human race at parents who want the best for their kids is the best route to go down! 

I don't actively blame the parents all that much - self-interest is difficult to get over. However it still contributes to and perpetuates a system that is fundamentally broken and again, I'm not sure that should be encouraged or justified.

 

Of course perfection in this regard, as well as all others, is impossible to achieve. But perhaps it is possible to strive to make things just a little more equal and have a rising tide lift all boats, rather than a system designed to leave a great many foundering.

 

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

You must have had some idea when you were at school about who were the good teachers and who were the bad teachers.  You didn't do that by way of league tables.  The competent head I referred to, the one who doesn't just rely on league tables, should know who is good and who is bad; who deserves a [pay rise and who doesn't; who will best serve the interests of children by getting a different job, and who is a treasure to be encouraged at all costs.

Of course, but seeing as I was much more OK with teachers who just didn't give any homework, I certainly wouldn't trust my own judgement on the matter and I wouldn't trust any other one person or even a group of people to assess such "good" and "bad".

 

There does have to be accountability, as in everything else - but that cannot come at the cost of perpetuating a system that really isn't fit for purpose beyond those who think education and life in general should be a microcosm of the evolutionary struggle.

[fox_favourite]

16 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The figures I linked show that expenses per child have risen by more than inflation.  

All other costs have increased as well as the responsibility from the school side. Buildings were managed by the LA now they are academies they are directly responsible for them - extra costs. IT is integrated more than ever I to education, that's another high cost. Staffing is at a high cost than ever as well. There are now business managers, HR, admin for etc....

 

Funding has increased, but the demand on that budget has also increased. 

 

Anyway, I doubt I will convince you. If you ever get a chance, speak to a head/principal, you might find it interesting 

Edited 28 August 2023 by fox_favourite

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem is where there isn't that freedom.  Where I live there were 7 high schools, 6 in the elongated urban area of Brierfield-Nelson-Colne, and 1 in Barnoldswick, separated by 3 or 4 miles of countryside.  There was a strict ration of number of children allocated to each school, no flexibility.

 

The school in Barnoldswick was bad.  Approximately 70% of Barnoldswick parents selected three schools in Nelson and Colne rather than selecting their home town school, knowing that free transport wouldn't be available.  But no-one from Nelson and Colne wanted to go to Barnoldswick, so all those parent (and children) who selected "anywhere but Barnoldswick" got landed with Barnoldswick.  And because the headteacher was both incompetent and unsackable, this went on for year after year.  

 

If parental choice worked properly, the school would have closed and then presumably reopened with new management and new teachers; or alternative, possibly smaller, schools would have opened; or the better schools some distance away would have expanded a bit.  Surely better than subjecting a generation of children to failed education.

This is of course operating on the assumption that parents are good arbiters of what a good school is and isn't, as well as the outcome of the school shutting would be one of the three potentially positive outcomes suggested here.

 

I'm not sure that either of those things are always or even often the case.

[Guesty]

25 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

All other costs have increased as well as the responsibility from the school side. Buildings were managed by the LA now they are academies they are directly responsible for them - extra costs. IT is integrated more than ever I to education, that's another high cost. Staffing is at a high cost than ever as well. 

 

Funding has increased, but the demand on that budget has also increased. 

I used to work for a payroll provider for schools. Some school business managers are/were completely underqualified (basically admin assistants that would do the job on the cheap). We had one school which had recently become an academy and phoned us about maintenance to their sewers. We had to tell them: now they were an academy it was their responsibility; the bill was thousands and she was crying on the phone because they didn't have the money. Even worse when we went through all the other things that were now their responsibility. Some schools were sold the dream of academy status without any of the drawbacks.

Edited 28 August 2023 by Guesty

[dsr-burnley]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is of course operating on the assumption that parents are good arbiters of what a good school is and isn't, as well as the outcome of the school shutting would be one of the three potentially positive outcomes suggested here.

 

I'm not sure that either of those things are always or even often the case.

Parents may not be good arbiters of what is best for the children, but taking them out of the decision so that the state can decide is worse IMO.

 

And as for the reluctance to shut down a bad school because the replacement might not be any better - I'm not convinced.  I would have thought that in general, if you close down the worst schools every year and replace them with new ones that may or may not be better, the average standard should improve.  (Current Opposition policy appears to be to close down the best schools, with the same hope.  Again, I'm not convinced.)

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Parents may not be good arbiters of what is best for the children, but taking them out of the decision so that the state can decide is worse IMO.

 

 

Quite frankly I think the majority of parents are woefully unequipped to judge the competency of schools and teachers, in the same way I'm unequipped to judge the competency of high-level restaurant chefs - not enough bona fide knowledge on the matter. Therefore, while they're free to voice opinions, I'm not sure of the amount of input they should have without demonstrations of that knowledge. Of course, leaving it all to the state isn't a great solution either but this isn't a dichotomy, for example, schools and teachers can be accountable to other parties who have demonstrated knowledge of their own, without the state having the final say.

 

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

And as for the reluctance to shut down a bad school because the replacement might not be any better - I'm not convinced.  I would have thought that in general, if you close down the worst schools every year and replace them with new ones that may or may not be better, the average standard should improve.  (Current Opposition policy appears to be to close down the best schools, with the same hope.  Again, I'm not convinced.)

Depends on whether the "new" ones turn out to be better than the "old" ones more than 50/50, I guess. And that's difficult to know.

 

Allow me to make my point clear: exposing education to the full glare of free market forces will only cause a greater divide not only in education, but in society in general too as it knocks-on. And that's a ruinous outcome - practically every single country where education is largely run as private industry proves this.

[Daggers]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If I was a parent

*teachers everywhere like this